Doug: I don’t follow this line of argument either, Barry. At the very least, the neocons want governments in the Middle East that are controllable. Islamic fundamentalists are eminently not controllable.

It is true that the US got in tight with many of those types during the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, but that was ages ago, under a totally different geopolitical order.

The neo-cons have it easier with political Islam for several reasons (ie they can keep control via Arab chaos, and always have a good excuse for “regime change” if they can’t - they did this with Saddam too, I know, but dictatorships can also be useful to US government/business)....

...What the US does NOT want are stable democracies or Arab nationalism or Arab Socialism.. all these might mean countries which might not need America anymore or might stand up to Amercia because their people will be doing better.. sort of like why the US hates Castro, Chavez, etc.

Why do you think the US overthrew the demo. elected Iranian government to put in the Shah? Take a closer look at American foreign policy in the Middle East… Read Dreyfuss’s book…

...We were “tight” with folks for OUR interests beyond that of “containing” Russia (which was another pandora’s box WE opened).

“Ages ago?” Do you think the people in the Middle East have short memories?

They favor the chaotic Middle East (and Islamic fundamentalists) because it helps them to “have an enemy”, through which they create the ideology of the “just and protective” America. Isn’t this what Strauss was after?

That’s only part of the story. Recall that these Neocons are not just Straussians, but also Imperial neoliberals!

[quote author=“Barry”]...What the US does NOT want are stable democracies or Arab nationalism or Arab Socialism.. all these might mean countries which might not need America anymore or might stand up to Amercia because their people will be doing better.. sort of like why the US hates Castro, Chavez, etc.

I don’t follow this line of argument. The neocons don’t hate Castro because the Cubans are “doing better”. They hate him because he is a communist dictator.

And that sort of argument would lead us to believe the neocons would not want a stable democracy in Europe or Japan either ...

[quote author=“Barry”]“Ages ago?” Do you think the people in the Middle East have short memories?

Not at all; just that the reasoning behind supporting these Islamic radicals was not about nation-building at the time—it was about doing to the USSR what had been done to us before in Vietnam ...

I don’t follow this line of argument. The neocons don’t hate Castro because the Cubans are “doing better”. They hate him because he is a communist dictator.

And that sort of argument would lead us to believe the neocons would not want a stable democracy in Europe or Japan either ...

Europe existed way before neoconservatism, and the U.S. is helping destroy Europe via neoliberal globalization anyway - why do you think social democracy is failing? Plus, the NeoCons need someone to make money off of, why not the Europeans and Japanese? Oil is the main reason for why the Neocons want control over the Middle East (besides placating the Israel Lobby), and they SELL that oil (which they control) to Europe, Japan and China… Which is one reason they hate Chavez who wants to sell his oil much more cheaply.

As for Castro, the U.S. has waged war and enforced draconian sanctions against Cuba for so long because we can’t have a WORKING socialist nation just off our shores proving our propaganda about the USSR and socialism in general was baloney. Besides, the NeoCons LOVE dictators, when they do what they tell them to.

And if the NeoCons could turn the U.S. into a dictatorship (which they have tried to do), they would!

Barry wrote:
“Ages ago?” Do you think the people in the Middle East have short memories?

Doug said: Not at all; just that the reasoning behind supporting these Islamic radicals was not about nation-building at the time—it was about doing to the USSR what had been done to us before in Vietnam ...

Huh? It was NOT only about the USSR, and it was ALWAYS about controlling the oil rich Arab nations. Two different birds with one imperial stone.

And what do you mean “doing to the USSR what had been done to us in Vietnam” ??? WE did Vietnam to ourselves! If the Russians helped some of them against our trying to force U.S. hegemony on southeast Asia, it was OUR fault. And we wanted Russia out of Afghanstan so we could use that country for ourselves. Don’t you realize that the U.S. began the “Cold War” (with Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and helped create the USSR as an adversary? Geez!

Barry, I’m not going to get into all this revisionist history stuff. It’s boring and pointless. But just for the record, this is all inaccurate.

Hmph. When new facts come out, and people add it to what we know already of the past, we may indeed have to “revise” history (books/accounts)!

This is not “revisionist” in the conservative sense (let’s stick with the “offical” America the Shining Beacon versions of “history”), for that attitude stems from another idea - American Exceptionalism.

Understand that history is not an exact science. Remember “who” writes and promotes American “history” and for what purpose. Can you PROVE the so-called revisionists “use” the “wrong” facts? Who is more likely to be stating the real facts, and why?

Read Dr. Paul Krugman’s writings that favor globalization , which helps the poor! Such as he, and not Ayn Rand or Nozick on the righ and who knows whom on the left, :idea: study what actually works and not some irrational ideology. Regulated free enterprise is no oxymororn but what gives us value . :idea:

Signature

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Krugman, a New Deal Liberal, ought not like globalization as it currently is a NEO-liberal venture, not a ND-Liberal one. Anyway, Krugman is not much of a Leftist, so I do not take his economic advice too seriously.

Given that Krugman is one of the real experts in this field, it would be a shame to overlook his advice for purely political reasons.

Huh? It IS politics we are talking about, and neoliberal globalization ought not be defended by a “liberal” economist. Then again, that depends on what sort of liberal Krugman is. He is a rather mainstream one, I think - based on what I’ve read so far. I think someone like Michael Perelman might be a better start for humanists to consider.

Doug , right as most always ! [I can be wrong,too.] I wish you could do a ” Theism and Logic” for dummies as Theodore Drange wishes someone would. That is powerful but difficult book for most and modal logic scares me. There are so many atheist books since I started with Walter Kaufmann’s two.What are ones you suggest? [I have most .] I have so much to read and reread.

Signature

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Doug is not right (as always). He thinks economics have nothing to do with political attitudes, and political attitudes have nothing to do with backing or rejecting certain economic systems. What planet does he live on?

:D So there is a connection that Krugman himself makes: democratic regulated free markets work better than statist ones . Doug knows that thoroughly . :wink:

Signature

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”